Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Project 2025: Part II

Project 2025: Part II

The inauguration of Donald Trump.

Getty Images / The Washington Post

Last spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part series on Project 2025.

For those of you not familiar with Project 2025, it is a playbook written in late 2024, specifically created for Donald Trump to use as a guideline for his first 180 days in office should he win the November election. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, proudly took credit for facilitating the creation of the 887-page documentary.


Project 2025’s two editors were assisted by 34 authors, 277 contributors, a 54-member advisory board, and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations (including ALEC, The Heartland Institute, Liberty University, Middle East Forum, Moms for Liberty, the NRA, Pro-Life America and the Tea Party Patriots).

At the time, those from the left and the right were making assumptions about the meaning and impact of Project 2025. The Fulcrum felt a different approach was needed and proceeded to publish 30 columns over a three-month period, analyzing Project 2025 from a cross-partisan perspective, void of pre-determined left or right solutions. We felt this would serve as a guide for citizens and our elected representatives to ensure the healthy democratic republic we all desire.

Now that Trump has been Elected- Project 2025- Part II

Now that Donald Trump has been elected president, it is time for “Project 2025 Part II” to determine if last year's speculation as to what might be implemented from Project 2025 is actually being implemented or in the process of being implemented.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, then-candidate Trump distanced himself from the initiative, calling parts of it "ridiculous and abysmal". However, recently, he praised some aspects of the policy agenda, describing parts of it as "very conservative and very good".

Actions speak louder than words and despite his previous disavowals, many of Trump's early actions in his second term align with the Project 2025 agenda, including sweeping deregulation measures and aggressive immigration reform.

Already, the Trump administration has taken several actions that align with Project 2025. Here are a few notable examples:

  • Deregulation Measures: Trump has issued executive orders rolling back numerous regulations, which is a key component of Project 2025's agenda.
  • Immigration Reform: The administration has implemented stricter immigration policies, including measures to curb illegal immigration and enhance border security.
  • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Trump established a review council to advise on FEMA's ability to address disasters, echoing Project 2025's recommendation to shift more disaster response responsibilities to states.
  • Gender Policies: An executive order was signed, recognizing only two sexes, male and female, which aligns with Project 2025's stance on gender issues.

These actions reflect the influence of Project 2025's policy blueprint on Trump's administration, and starting soon, the Fulcrum will again publish detailed reports on each of the federal departments being impacted by Project 2025.

If we are to have a healthy and thriving democratic republic, we need a “Cross-Partisan Project 2025,” and as we did last summer, we will ask many important questions on the various components being implemented:

  • What's dividing Americans on critical issues?
  • Which information presented by Project 2025 is factual and to be trusted, and what is not?
  • What is oversimplified about Project 2025’s representation and perspective, and what is not? What are alternative solutions?
  • What do people from all sides of the political spectrum need to understand to address salient points of Project 2025 in a critical-thinking manner?
  • What are the questions nobody's asking?

We will, once again, explore the nuances and complexities of the subjects and issues covered in the implementation of components of the Project 2025 plan.

We will not shy away from Project 2025’s most controversial components and will call attention to dangerous thinking that threatens our democracy when we see it. However, in doing so, we are committing to not employing accusations, innuendos or misinformation. We will advocate for intellectual honesty to inform and persuade effectively.

The second phase of our Cross-Partisan Project 2025 series offers The Fulcrum a unique opportunity to provide reporting that banishes the old ways of demonizing “the other side.” We will be committed to implementing critical thinking, reexamining outdated assumptions, and using reason, scientific evidence, and data in formulating and testing public policy for 2025 and beyond. Our reporting and analysis will be based on a philosophy that seeks out diverse perspectives and experiences to find common ground.

Our nation needs to reshape our collective sense of civic responsibility, community building and political engagement. We must nurture new generations of thoughtful citizens and committed leaders who will promote a multidimensional approach to America's most important domestic and foreign policy issues.

That is the goal of Part II of “The Fulcrum’s Cross-Partisan Project 2025”

Samples of Phase 1 articles about Project 2025

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Members of the National Guard patrol near the U.S. Capitol on October 1, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)

Combatting the Trump Administration’s Militarized Logic

Approaching a year of the new Trump administration, Americans are getting used to domestic militarized logic. A popular sense of powerlessness permeates our communities. We bear witness to the attacks against innocent civilians by ICE, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we naturally wonder—is this the new American discourse? Violent action? The election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York offers hope that there may be another way.

Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim democratic socialist, was elected as mayor of New York City on the fourth of November. Mamdani’s platform includes a reimagining of the police force in New York City. Mamdani proposes a Department of Community Safety. In a CBS interview, Mamdani said, “Our vision for a Department of Community Safety, the DCS, is that we would have teams of dedicated mental health outreach workers that we deploy…to respond to those incidents and get those New Yorkers out of the subway system and to the services that they actually need.” Doing so frees up NYPD officers to respond to actual threats and crime, without a responsibility to the mental health of civilians.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust


Image generated by IVN staff.

How Four Top Officials Can Win Back Public Trust

Mandate for Change: The Public Calls for a Course Correction

The honeymoon is over. A new national survey from the Independent Center reveals that a plurality of American adults and registered voters believe key cabinet officials should be replaced—a striking rebuke of the administration’s current direction. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are all underwater with the public, especially among independents.

But the message isn’t just about frustration—it’s about opportunity. Voters are signaling that these leaders can still win back public trust by realigning their policies with the issues Americans care about most. The data offers a clear roadmap for course correction.

Health and Human Services: RFK Jr. Is Losing the Middle

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is emerging as a political liability—not just to the administration, but to the broader independent movement he once claimed to represent. While his favorability ratings are roughly even, the plurality of adults and registered voters now say he should be replaced. This sentiment is especially strong among independents, who once viewed Kennedy as a fresh alternative but now see him as out of step with their values.

Keep ReadingShow less
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Epstein abuse survivor Haley Robson (C) reacts alongside Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) (R) as the family of Virginia Giuffre speaks during a news conference with lawmakers on the Epstein Files Transparency Act outside the U.S. Capitol on November 18, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Break With Trump Over Epstein Files Is a Test of GOP Conscience

Today, the House of Representatives is voting on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a bill that would compel the Justice Department to release unclassified records related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. For months, the measure languished in procedural limbo. Now, thanks to a discharge petition signed by Democrats and a handful of Republicans, the vote is finally happening.

But the real story is not simply about transparency. It is about political courage—and the cost of breaking ranks with Donald Trump.

Keep ReadingShow less